M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to s. 43B(b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with s. 36(va) with its Explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to s. 43B(b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with s. 36(va) with its Explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation claimed thereon. the assessing authority was bound to consider the Explanation. Simply because the facts have been disclosed by the assessee, it does not give immunity from revisional jurisdiction which the Commissioner can exercise under section 263 and as such even in a case where the facts have been disclosed by the assessee to the assessing authority

M/S. BHARAT CERA GLASS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

35 Arihant Kumar Burad 34 Nitesh Mundra 14 Sunil Ranka 14 8. Thus, it can be seen that assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested. Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is reproduced for ready reference. 56..... (2)..... (viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation and amortization expenses of the assessee as per provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act after seeking relevant details and documents from the assessee. Further, reliance was placed on explanation (2) to section 263(1) of the Act. It was submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has been rightly held to be erroneous

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation) Surplus Rs.24,52,645/- Rs.(33,59,795/-) Rs.(9,07,150)/- From the above it can be noted that if the income of assessee is to be computed without allowing exemption u/s 11, there would be deficit of Rs.9,07,150/- as against income of Rs.2,97,693/- computed by the assessee. Therefore, the gross receipts cannot

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation of Rs 5,88,10,437/- out of available unabsorbed balance of Rs 14,22,06,252/-.) and paid tax on MAT. Assessee had paid tax on MAT on the book profit of Rs 8,35,79,797/-. The case was selected for Scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) dtd. 11.08.2018 was issued and duly served upon

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

depreciation @ 10.32% subject to depreciation, except depreciation on fixed assets claimed to be added during the year under consideration (i.e. for AY 2016-2017). When revenue challenged that order of the ld. CIT(A) net profit rate of 10.32% was applied net of depreciation means no separate deduction of depreciation was allowable. So, applying that precedent ld. AO noted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

35,225/- towards commission for obtaining such bogus long term capital gain, which the AO has added u/s 69C is also confirmed for the same reasons. Addition of Rs. 8,08,458/- to cover up and for certain identified defects in the books of account admitted in course of assessment by the Ld. A.R represented the case, is also hereby

M/S. PYROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 2 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 18.02.2020 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

35,80,573.00 as against 14.49% for the immediately preceding year. The AO observed that the books of account were maintained in the same manner as in the immediate preceding year. He noted the reasons, at page No 2 to 8 of the assessment order, for the rejection of the books results. On being show cause the assessee gave reason

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

35,80,573.00 as against 14.49% for the immediately preceding year. The AO observed that the books of account were maintained in the same manner as in the immediate preceding year. He noted the reasons, at page No 2 to 8 of the assessment order, for the rejection of the books results. On being show cause the assessee gave reason

DCIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN GOYAL, FARIDABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotedcit Vs. Shri Brij Bhushan Circle, Pali., Goyal, Jodhpur. House No. 331, Sector Rajasthan. 16A, Faridabad, Haryana.-121002 Pan/Gir No. : Aawpg8405D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation 35,151 claim 4 Addition on account of electricity 1,01,574 expenses 5 Gross Total income 2,33,52,346 6 Deduction u/s 80C 1,00,000 7 Deduction u/s 80TTA 1,000 8 Deduction u/s 80D 10,693 9 Total (4+5+6) 1,20,693 10 Balance Income 2,23,31,653 11 Deduction claimed

P I INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

depreciation u/s 32 of the IT act. These facts were verified by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings and when the books of accounts were submitted to him for examination. 22. In regard to claim u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, the assessee submitted that deduction u/s 35 (2AB) of the IT Act 1961 amounting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation of Rs. 51,77,474/-. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law the ld. CIT (A) had erred by admitting additional evidence without granted requisite opportunity to the Assessing Officer. First, we deal with the appeal in ITA No. 30/Jodh/2020. M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. Ground

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not as per law. He placed reliance on the decisions referred in the order of Ld. CIT(A) (supra). 7. The Ld. D/R relied on the order of AO by arguing that assessee has not filed any evidence linking that own funds have been utilised for giving the interest